The Ethics of Taking Assault Rifles

For years, the Republicans have warned voters
that Democrats intended to take their guns. For years, Democrats did no such thing,
and a stock talking point was that although they wanted gun control, they did
not plan to take guns away. In a passionate moment calculated to draw media
attention Beto O’Rourke spoke the words long prophesized by the Republicans: “Hell,
yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” While this certainly angered
and frightened many gun owners, it was surely sweet music to the Republicans—if
the Democrats put that on their platform, then Trump will probably get a second
term. But, if they stay tepid on guns, then the Democrats stand a good chance
of losing a key part of their base—which might cost them the election. I
suspect the Republican money folks are looking hard for an anti-gun third party
candidate to bankroll, just in case the Democrats decide that “Beto 2020: He’ll
Take Your Guns!” is not a winning option. These are, of course, all matters of
political calculation.

There are obviously legal
concerns about Beto’s proposal. While presidents can issue executive orders and
congress has been focused on getting re-elected by not governing, a
president probably cannot confiscate assault weapons this way. While some
will point to the Second Amendment, the laws governing automatic weapons,
silencers and sawed-off shotguns show that certain classes of weapons can be
tightly controlled, and past bans show that this approach can sometimes pass
muster. So while Beto would not be able to take away assault weapons by
himself, he could do so with the aid of congress. Such efforts would no doubt
reach the supreme court—and the current makeup is such that the court would
probably rule against them. But if Brett Kavanaugh happened to die from boofing
the Devil’s Triangle then President Beto might be able to get his way. While the
legal aspects of this matter are critical, there are also moral concerns about
such an action.

Since this is a matter
of large-scale ethics, it is reasonable to take a utilitarian approach to the
matter: would taking away assault weapons create more moral good than moral
bad?

On the positive side, proponents
of taking away such guns point out that they are the favored weapon for mass
shootings. The high capacity magazines of such weapons make them ideal for rapidly
killing large numbers people—hardly shocking since they were designed to do
just that. As such, if most assault weapons were successfully taken away from
the public, mass shootings would be less deadly—killers would need to rely on
shotguns, handguns, and non-assault rifles (I do wonder if battle rifles would
be counted as assault rifles here). While one could work out rate-of-fire
calculations for various weapons to determine the likely impact of an absence
of assault weapons, it does make sense that the body count would be lower. This
is, obviously enough, the strongest moral argument in favor of taking guns: it
would reduce the number of people killed each year. What must be noted is that
while assault weapons grab the headlines, handguns are the weapons that are
used the most in killings—so an assault weapon ban would not impact the leading
types of gun deaths.

While it might seem
cold, it must be said that we (collectively) do tolerate a certain number of
deaths that could be easily prevented by banning dangerous things. The obvious
example would be the ban of private vehicles—that would save thousands of lives.
Banning swimming pools and would also save lives. We do not ban such things
because we weigh the benefits (fewer dead people) against the benefits (and the
harms of the ban). So, we tolerate thousands of deaths for economic reasons, convenience
and enjoyment. As such, the same consideration must be given to assault weapons.

On the positive side,
assault weapons do have economic value—they must be manufactured and sold.
People enjoy owning, modifying and using them. They do have some use as hunting
and defense weapons. On the face of it, saying these outweigh the deaths that
would be prevented by taking them away would seem heartless. But as noted
above, this same reasoning is applied to so many other dangerous things—so moral
consistency would require people who back taking away assault weapons to apply
the same principles to all dangerous things—which would seem to morally require
us to go on a banning and confiscation streak.

The negatives of such a
confiscation must also be considered. On the extreme end, some people are in
the “cold dead fingers” camp and say they will fight to the death for their
guns. As such, efforts to confiscate guns could result in deaths and these would
need to be part of the calculation. On the pragmatic side, there is also the
cost to confiscate weapons. Even if the state steals them from their owners,
there will still be a cost to do this. If the state compensates the owners,
there will be a significant financial cost—but one easily managed by a government
that can pay for presidential golf trips. There are also political concerns
that are morally relevant. As noted above, if the Democrats run on the assault
weapon confiscation plan, then Trump will probably get a second term. While this
would be seen as great by those who support Trump, it would be terrible for most
people—so the utilitarian argument would favor not backing the confiscation.

Reader Interactions

Comments

For example, while I had heard that TDS was a thing, I realised that the mind-virus has mutated a KDS variant when I read the entirely gratuitous and irrelevant “But if Brett Kavanaugh happened to die from boofing the Devil’s Triangle” sneer.

I also learned that I don’t understand the legal theory of the Second Amendment. I thought I understood the general principles of it, but then I read Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, and the two dissents. While I appreciate that Heller was carefully focused on quite a specific issue, and that the majority opinion expressly stated that it was not a complete legal framework for the Second Amendment, I am now left without a coherent view on the legal issues.

I also learned that serious, learned, well-meaning, and highly intelligent people can manage to make any subject, even the apparently clearest, entirely muddled, and arrive at contradictory final conclusions with great confidence – as long as they argue only with words rather than empirical evidence. Well, no, I didn’t learn that, because I already knew it, but I did receive an impressive confirming data point.

On the question of a consequentialist argument, I can’t find anything convincing. A utilitarian would have to quantify the expectations for good and harm from effects and side-effects, and the evidence for believing all of that. I don’t see that O’Rourke has produced any, and it’s far too big a job for me even to attempt to map out.

Personally, given the few numbers I do know, it seems to me unlikely that such a specific confiscation could be empirircally justified, except perhaps as one element in a much larger plan.

Heh. Good job. Especially the bit about empirical evidence. Where the rubber meets the road. As to the Second Amendment…here’s my Alexander-and-the-Gordian-knot approach, as applies to the ONE predominant, underlying theme of the US Constitution, and in tandem good government in general…Leave people alone. This isn’t just a libertarian construct. It’s much more an understanding that as government, or any entity for that matter, grows and creates more and more rules, it becomes less and less effective at enforcing them fairly, broadly, and thus in a manner that works for the greater good. To some degree I think the Founders screwed up by even mentioning this right in the context of a material good such as “arms”, however defined. The underlying fundamental right is the most basic right of existence, human or otherwise, the right of self defense.